AB appears to be associated with the degree of cognitive load experienced in decision tasks, and appears to not be uniquely associated with multitasking. Strategies to minimize AB might focus on cognitive load reduction.

BackgroundClinical decision support (CDS) in e-prescribing can improve safety by alerting potential errors, but introduces new sources of risk. Automation bias (AB) occurs when users over-rely on CDS, reducing vigilance in information seeking and processing. Evidence of AB has been found in other clinical tasks, but has not yet been tested with e-prescribing. This study tests for the presence of AB in e-prescribing and the impact of task complexity and interruptions on AB.MethodsOne hundred and twenty students in the final two years of a medical degree prescribed medicines for nine clinical scenarios using a simulated e-prescribing system. Quality of CDS (correct, incorrect and no CDS) and task complexity (low, low + interruption and high) were varied between conditions. Omission errors (failure to detect prescribing errors) and commission errors (acceptance of false positive alerts) were measured.ResultsCompared to scenarios with no CDS, correct CDS reduced omission errors by 38.3% (p < .0001, n = 120), 46.6% (p < .0001, n = 70), and 39.2% (p < .0001, n = 120) for low, low + interrupt and high complexity scenarios respectively. Incorrect CDS increased omission errors by 33.3% (p < .0001, n = 120), 24.5% (p < .009, n = 82), and 26.7% (p < .0001, n = 120). Participants made commission errors, 65.8% (p < .0001, n = 120), 53.5% (p < .0001, n = 82), and 51.7% (p < .0001, n = 120). Task complexity and interruptions had no impact on AB.ConclusionsThis study found evidence of AB omission and commission errors in e-prescribing. Verification of CDS alerts is key to avoiding AB errors. However, interventions focused on this have had limited success to date. Clinicians should remain vigilant to the risks of CDS failures and verify CDS.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0425-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveTo examine how and to what extent medical devices using machine learning (ML) support clinician decision making.MethodsWe searched for medical devices that were (1) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) up till February 2020; (2) intended for use by clinicians; (3) in clinical tasks or decisions and (4) used ML. Descriptive information about the clinical task, device task, device input and output, and ML method were extracted. The stage of human information processing automated by ML-based devices and level of autonomy were assessed.ResultsOf 137 candidates, 59 FDA approvals for 49 unique devices were included. Most approvals (n=51) were since 2018. Devices commonly assisted with diagnostic (n=35) and triage (n=10) tasks. Twenty-three devices were assistive, providing decision support but left clinicians to make important decisions including diagnosis. Twelve automated the provision of information (autonomous information), such as quantification of heart ejection fraction, while 14 automatically provided task decisions like triaging the reading of scans according to suspected findings of stroke (autonomous decisions). Stages of human information processing most automated by devices were information analysis, (n=14) providing information as an input into clinician decision making, and decision selection (n=29), where devices provide a decision.ConclusionLeveraging the benefits of ML algorithms to support clinicians while mitigating risks, requires a solid relationship between clinician and ML-based devices. Such relationships must be carefully designed, considering how algorithms are embedded in devices, the tasks supported, information provided and clinicians’ interactions with them.

This is the first research to examine the relationship between CL and AB. Findings suggest designers and users of CDS systems need to be aware of the risks of AB. Interventions that increase user vigilance and engagement may be beneficial and deserve further investigation.

Objective The study sought to summarize research literature on nursing decision support systems (DSSs); understand which steps of the nursing care process (NCP) are supported by DSSs, and analyze effects of automated information processing on decision making, care delivery, and patient outcomes. Materials and Methods We conducted a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from January 2014 to April 2020 for studies focusing on DSSs used exclusively by nurses and their effects. Information about the stages of automation (information acquisition, information analysis, decision and action selection, and action implementation), NCP, and effects was assessed. Results Of 1019 articles retrieved, 28 met the inclusion criteria, each studying a unique DSS. Most DSSs were concerned with two NCP steps: assessment (82%) and intervention (86%). In terms of automation, all included DSSs automated information analysis and decision selection. Five DSSs automated information acquisition and only one automated action implementation. Effects on decision making, care delivery, and patient outcome were mixed. DSSs improved compliance with recommendations and reduced decision time, but impacts were not always sustainable. There were improvements in evidence-based practice, but impact on patient outcomes was mixed. Conclusions Current nursing DSSs do not adequately support the NCP and have limited automation. There remain many opportunities to enhance automation, especially at the stage of information acquisition. Further research is needed to understand how automation within the NCP can improve nurses’ decision making, care delivery, and patient outcomes.

Objective Clinicians using clinical decision support (CDS) to prescribe medications have an obligation to ensure that prescriptions are safe. One option is to verify the safety of prescriptions if there is uncertainty, for example, by using drug references. Supervisory control experiments in aviation and process control have associated errors, with reduced verification arising from overreliance on decision support. However, it is unknown whether this relationship extends to clinical decision-making. Therefore, we examine whether there is a relationship between verification behaviors and prescribing errors, with and without CDS medication alerts, and whether task complexity mediates this. Methods A total of 120 students in the final 2 years of a medical degree prescribed medicines for patient scenarios using a simulated electronic prescribing system. CDS (correct, incorrect, and no CDS) and task complexity (low and high) were varied. Outcomes were omission (missed prescribing errors) and commission errors (accepted false-positive alerts). Verification measures were access of drug references and view time percentage of task time. Results Failure to access references for medicines with prescribing errors increased omission errors with no CDS (high-complexity: χ 2(1) = 12.716; p < 0.001) and incorrect CDS (Fisher's exact; low-complexity: p = 0.002; high-complexity: p = 0.001). Failure to access references for false-positive alerts increased commission errors (low-complexity: χ 2(1) = 16.673, p < 0.001; high-complexity: χ 2(1) = 18.690, p < 0.001). Fewer participants accessed relevant references with incorrect CDS compared with no CDS (McNemar; low-complexity: p < 0.001; high-complexity: p < 0.001). Lower view time percentages increased omission (F(3, 361.914) = 4.498; p = 0.035) and commission errors (F(1, 346.223) = 2.712; p = 0.045). View time percentages were lower in CDS-assisted conditions compared with unassisted conditions (F(2, 335.743) = 10.443; p < 0.001). Discussion The presence of CDS reduced verification of prescription safety. When CDS was incorrect, reduced verification was associated with increased prescribing errors. Conclusion CDS can be incorrect, and verification provides one mechanism to detect errors. System designers need to facilitate verification without increasing workload or eliminating the benefits of correct CDS.

ObjectiveTo measure lookup rates of externally held primary care records accessed in emergency care and identify patient characteristics, conditions and potential consequences associated with access.MeasuresRates of primary care record access and re-presentation to the emergency department (ED) within 30 days and hospital admission.DesignA retrospective observational study of 77 181 ED presentations over 4 years and 9 months, analysing 8184 index presentations in which patients’ primary care records were accessed from the ED. Data were compared with 17 449 randomly selected index control presentations. Analysis included propensity score matching for age and triage categories.Results6.3% of overall ED presentations triggered a lookup (rising to 8.3% in year 5); 83.1% of patients were only looked up once and 16.9% of patients looked up on multiple occasions. Lookup patients were on average 25 years older (z=−9.180, p<0.001, r=0.43). Patients with more urgent triage classifications had their records accessed more frequently (z=−36.47, p<0.001, r=0.23). Record access was associated with a significant but negligible increase in hospital admission (χ2 (1, n=13 120)=98.385, p<0.001, phi=0.087) and readmission within 30 days (χ2 (1, n=13 120)=86.288, p<0.001, phi=0.081).DiscussionEmergency care clinicians access primary care records more frequently for older patients or those in higher triage categories. Increased levels of inpatient admission and re-presentation within 30 days are likely linked to age and triage categories.ConclusionFurther studies should focus on the impact of record access on clinical and process outcomes and which record elements have the most utility to shape clinical decisions.

Objective To examine the real-world safety problems involving machine learning (ML)-enabled medical devices. Materials and Methods We analyzed 266 safety events involving approved ML medical devices reported to the US FDA’s MAUDE program between 2015 and October 2021. Events were reviewed against an existing framework for safety problems with Health IT to identify whether a reported problem was due to the ML device (device problem) or its use, and key contributors to the problem. Consequences of events were also classified. Results Events described hazards with potential to harm (66%), actual harm (16%), consequences for healthcare delivery (9%), near misses that would have led to harm if not for intervention (4%), no harm or consequences (3%), and complaints (2%). While most events involved device problems (93%), use problems (7%) were 4 times more likely to harm (relative risk 4.2; 95% CI 2.5–7). Problems with data input to ML devices were the top contributor to events (82%). Discussion Much of what is known about ML safety comes from case studies and the theoretical limitations of ML. We contribute a systematic analysis of ML safety problems captured as part of the FDA’s routine post-market surveillance. Most problems involved devices and concerned the acquisition of data for processing by algorithms. However, problems with the use of devices were more likely to harm. Conclusions Safety problems with ML devices involve more than algorithms, highlighting the need for a whole-of-system approach to safe implementation with a special focus on how users interact with devices.